Category: Integralism

The Tradinista project has been thoroughly discredited, but apparently they didn’t get the message. Matthew Shadle, writing over at Political Theology Today, shreds the Tradinistas’ attempt to wed their idiosyncratic and over-broad iteration of socialism with Catholic social teaching by uncloaking their bait-and-switch tactics while also calling into question the workability of their proposals. It will be interesting to see whether or not they respond to Shadle’s analysis. Like most ideologically charged movements, the Tradinistas are interested in neither reasoned disputation nor empirical analysis; all that matters is their ideas and how dare anyone tell them they’re wrong. In fact, despite an avalanche of criticism, the Tradinistas haven’t said much of anything at all. They’re just pushing on ahead, hoping nobody will notice the design flaws in both their so-called manifesto and three-part defense of “Catholic socialism.”

For instance, Jose Mena (who deserves some credit for using his real name), just penned a piece for The Catholic Herald’s blog that might lead some to believe that Tradinistas are a persecuted and misunderstood lot whose mission simply “combines socialist ideas with Catholic orthodoxy.” The problem, of course, is that it’s far from clear this is what the Tradinistas are up to, and so far it doesn’t appear as if they’ve convinced anyone but themselves. Why? Because for nearly two centuries, the Catholic Church has forcefully opposed socialism, an inconvenient truth which shifts to them the burden of proving that the socialism they claim to support is compatible with the Church’s magisterium. Mena doesn’t bother with any of this, of course. Instead, he tries to bolster what the Tradinistas are doing through another bait-and-switch by comparing them to Dorothy Day and Cesar Chavez, neither of whom were socialists per se. (In fact, Mena even acknowledges that Day was a Distributist.)

As for the rest of Mena’s piece, it’s a bit of a mess. For instance, Mena says that he identifies with millennials who are burdened by debt, can’t find a job, and live with their parents while failing to make mention of the fact that he graduated from Princeton in 2012 and worked for an institution run by the federal government. (If only all those he claims to be in solidarity with had it so hard!) He then maintains that “the Church has no answers” to the plight of the millennials before maintaining that he and the Tradinistas “do nothing more than follow Pope Francis.” If the Church has no answers, then why follow the Pope? While Mena is right to acknowledge that the Church is “torn by the confusions of the Second Vatican Council,” he seems to miss the fact that openly dissenting from what the Church has always taught concerning property, the market, labor, and subsidiarity is only going to add to this confusion.

The problems don’t end there. Mena, for reasons which are lost on me, believes the Cold War “drove Catholics right and left into the arms of capital,” “result[ing] [in] . . . a widespread embrace of American civic religion[.]” He fails to acknowledge that as early as the 19th Century, American Catholics were tempted by liberalism, pluralism, and separationism—temptations Pope Leo XIII warned against on several occasions. As Mena’s remark about the “arms of capital,” it’s hard to understand what he is driving at. Does Mena mean that American Catholics came to embrace and uphold capitalism over the course of the last century? Certainly many did, but not all. As for capitalism itself, living under it doesn’t necessarily mean endorsing it, which is why Leo XIII, St. Pius X, and Pius XI all issued directives concerning the relationship between labor and capital while hoping for a more authentically Catholic economic order to rise up.

Not surprisingly, Mena conveniently ignores the fact that for more than a century, faithful Catholics have consistently opposed all forms of liberalism—social, political, economic, and religious—without ever feeling compelled to posture socialist for what they call in the pro-wrestling industry “a cheap pop.” The heirs of the Distributists and Solidarists of the early-to-mid 20th Century—Belloc, Chesterton, Pesch—and the great social thinkers of that era as well—Fahey, Cahill, and Ousset—can be found today within traditional Catholic circles. The Society of St. Pius X has for nearly half-a-century kept alive the fight against liberalism while promoting the Church’s authentic social magisterium. More recently, integralist projects such as The Josias have sought to reclaim that magisterium and bolster it with original commentaries and translations from works which have, sadly, fallen by the wayside.

What comes next for the Tradinistas? Heaven only knows. Without much in the way of practical guidance or internal coherency, hopefully they will depart as quickly as they came. I have my doubts, however. For the time being, the Tradinistas “look cool,” what with their cheap rip-off of communist symbolism and claims to be “edgy” and “dangerous.” I have to wonder how many of these self-professed Tradinistas have ever been involved in labor issues or know what it’s like to try and organize workers. As a friend of mine noted, the closest most of the Tradinista priv-kids have probably ever come to interacting with blue-collar workers is stiffing them on a tip. Who would have thought “the revolution” would be this banal?

Last Friday I gave a talk on integralism for a Catholic men’s group here in Grand Rapids. It was my fourth talk for them, the most “popular” being my lengthy lecture on the (in)compatibility of libertarianism with Catholicism. Much of what I had to say was built upon articles, blog posts, and my ever-expanding book manuscript. At the outset of the talk, I half-jokingly said that integralism is nothing more than Catholics following what the Church has always taught, not just with respect to politics and society, but all facets of natural and supernatural life. It became clear to me over the course of my 90-minute speaking engagement that I wasn’t saying anything “new.” That is, I was not attempting to advance a pet ideology or catchy socio-cultural posture; I was imply explaining, inter alia, the relationship of spiritual and temporal authority; the social kingship of Christ; and the duty of all Catholics to follow divine and natural law, even when they conflict with civil positive law.

So it is strange (and depressing) to look at ostensibly Catholic publications, blogs, and social media to see so many self-professed conservative and traditional Catholics promoting ideas, positions, and candidates which are at odds with what the Church professes to be true. Pragmatism—and a last desperate grasp at political relevance—seems to be animating far too many Catholics to support the presidential candidacy of Donald Trump along with policies that uphold economic liberalism, war mongering, and religious indifferentism. Granted, this is not a new problem. For more than a century, American Catholicism has capitulated to the spirit of the times in order to prove that Catholics, like Protestants, Jews, and atheists, can be “good Americans” while (privately) holding fast to their (personal) religious beliefs.

A year ago I had thought that, given the deplorable state of American political life, this election cycle would witness a noticeable rise in outspoken Catholics who simply cannot abide by the despicable choices secular democracy has furnished us. Instead, what I see are more and more Catholics who love to go on about “orthodoxy” and “tradition” doubling-down on liberalism because they have duped themselves into believing that our state of affairs will be noticeably improved by the Republican Party over the Democratic Party. Granted, some of the panic-button pushers are willing to concede that the GOP is a shell of its former self with very little left on its platform to appeal to so-called social conservatives or the religious right. However, these same folk fear that another four (or eight) years of Democratic rule will yield catastrophic results for both Catholicism and the United States.

Personally, I am not willing to give in to fear, at least not yet (and, God willing, not ever). No credible evidence, coupled with a cogent argument, has yet been presented to convince me that I ought to cast a single vote this November which runs contrary to conscience—a conscience shaped by reason and revelation. If someone asks me what integralism “looks like” in action, that is it. Integralism means following the Church, not the Zeitgeist. Integralism means foregoing compromises with evil even at great professional and personal cost. Integralism, above all else, means upholding the social rights of Christ the King and never genuflecting before earthly powers and temporal thrones which have divorced themselves from God’s appointed spiritual authority, our Holy Mother Church.

Somewhat to my surprise, last Sunday’s post, “Traditionalist Worker Party?,” received far more traffic than expected, which prompted me to re-blog an earlier piece I had written for The Josias on integralism, nationalism, and racism. My main reason for doing so is because of the growing number of Catholics in America (and no doubt around the world) who believe the so-called “alt-right” (an extremely loose association of ostensibly conservative movements informed by everything from white nationalism to libertarianism) provides a way past the political turmoil wrought by mainline liberalism (be it from the Left or the Right). Although this is not the place to run down every problematic element of the alt-right movement, it should go without saying that the movement’s neo-/quasi-pagan elements, coupled with its infatuation with late-coming racialist ideology, has no place in any socio-political movement worthy of Catholic support. While certain alt-right positions on the economy, immigration, and foreign relations can be finessed with Catholic principles, that does not mean that the alt-right movement itself is in any way, shape, or form Catholic. In fact, the alt-right’s seeming obsession with racial and ethnic differences flies in the face of the Gospel’s universal message while reducing man to the status of a beast. This is not to say there are not distinct cultural differences between peoples as they are currently constituted on the earth, but those differences are temporal, not natural. Slavic culture (to the extent it existed) and Byzantine culture were clearly at odds during the first millennium of Christian history; that began to change substantially after the missionary efforts of Ss. Cyril and Methodius. And in today’s world, clearly Christian culture generally (the extent is still exists) is substantially different from Muslim culture generally, particularly in the Middle East. However, just as Christian missionaries worked and prayed for the conversion of the barbarian tribes in Eastern Europe, so, too, we ought to work and pray for the conversion of those millions of souls beholden to the false religion of Islam so that we may be one people under Jesus Christ our Lord.

With that noted, let me offer three loosely sketched thoughts on where integralism diverges from “alt-right” ideology with the hope that Catholics will see the former, not the latter, as the proper way forward.

Pater Edmund Waldstein, whose writings on monarchism and integralism have had a profound impact on my own thinking (see here), has an outstanding new article up at The Josias entitled “Integralism and the Gelasian Dyarchy.” More than just a restatement of the integralist thesis, Waldstein’s piece provides a powerful critique of radical Augustinian and Whig Thomist approaches to spiritual and temporal power. Here is a brief excerpt:

What (for lack of a better term) I call Augustinian radicalism comes close to abandoning the idea of dyarchy altogether. It takes a highly pessimistic view of earthly power, which it associates with Augustine’s city of man, it emphasizes the temporal, passing nature of such power, and sees a quasi-inevitable conflict between it and the Church. The Church on this account should reject the coercive means used by earthly power, and by already living in an anticipatory fashion the peace of the heavenly Jerusalem, serve as a sign of contradiction to the powers that are passing away. This position comes in many forms and degrees. The writers of whom I am thinking in particular are Stanley Hauerwas, Michael Baxter, C.S.C, John Milbank, and William T. Cavanaugh as well as Dorothy Day, whose practical example serves as an inspiration to many of the others.

Whig Thomism on the other hand, takes a much more positive view of temporal power. The Whig Thomists emphasize the distinction between the two powers. Welcoming a certain form of the separation of Church and state, they reject any juridical subordination of the state to the Church, and hold that the influence of the Church on the state should come only through the Church’s influence on the consciences of individual citizens. By far the most eloquent and insightful expositor of Whig Thomism was John Courtney Murray, S.J.

The question of the relation of spiritual to temporal power is intimately connected to the question of the relation nature and grace. Christianity is able to distinguish between the two powers, because it is a religion of grace, which does not destroy the order of nature, but presupposes, elevates, and perfects it. I shall argue that Augustinian radicalism tends to exaggerate towards a monism of grace, in which the natural loses all standing. Whig Thomism, on the other hand, tends to exaggerate the distinction, not sufficiently understanding that nature is for the sake of grace. Only integralism fits well with a fully satisfactory account of the elevation and perfection of natural teleology in grace.

Waldstein’s words warrant careful and deep reflection, particularly during an era where the most “popular” alternative available to our present situation is one or another escapist “options” which appear to be rooted more in certain lifestyle aesthetics than Scripture or tradition.

A thought: How far is the average American Catholic willing to go to sacrifice the principles of the faith in exchange for some form — even a grotesque form — of socio-political relevance? That is to say, at what point does this Catholic decide that St. Thomas Aquinas and numerous other theologians of the Church were wrong to assert that if one loses a part of the Faith, they lose it all? For today the Catholic Faith, like much of anything in this world of moving parts and endless preference fulfillment, is not only “negotiable,” but malleable. This piece is outdated (or inconvenient), and so it can be cast aside. Another piece provides existential comfort, so it can stay and yet another works as a soapbox upon which to stand in the midst of the so-called “culture wars.” This is the reality of Christian living today; it is the reality of all living. Those who lack faith of any sort, whose horizon expands no further than to the Apple Store, cannot be blamed entirely for living lives which are subject to serious (or a-serious) revision at a moment’s notice. Fads change; tastes change; people change, and no one wants to be left clinging to an outmoded posture or cultural form unless clinging to some outmoded posture or cultural form is indeed what is most current at the time. Life becomes — to lift from Leo Strauss — little more than the joyless pursuit of joy; everything terminates in entertainment. Should not a Catholic find this gross spectacle of waste nauseating? One Catholic did. Writing nearly nine decades ago in his seminal work The Concept of the Political, Carl Schmitt saw that the apotheosis of liberalism is entertainment — a life without seriousness or grandeur or even much of a point. But today’s American Catholic wants to be a good liberal, meaning a good consumer who carries around a few moralizing positions in their side pocket (e.g., abortion, birth control, death penalty, etc.) and a wallet full of bank cards in the back. “Give me religious liberty or, absent that, give me a house in the suburbs, two cars, and a fantastic vacation package to Disney World.” Where have gone the gifts of counsel, understanding, and fortitude? They have been exchanged for a “lifestyle choice.” Господи Помилуй

Note: This suggested reading list on Catholic social teaching (CST) first appeared on the old Opus Publicum on December 3, 2013. It remains substantially unchanged, though I have added a few suggestions and modified some others. As most readers of this web-log know by now, I am a strong proponent of reading the Church’s social magisterium holistically rather than selectively. However, for the purposes of this list, I have focused on the Church’s pre-Vatican II teachings for the simple fact that they tend to be clearer and more direct than certain recent expressions of CST.

Some years back, before I became invested in Catholic social teaching and Christian integralism, there was a massive dustup involving IHS Press and the now-defunct Legion of St. Louis. The latter organization, as best as I can tell, was dedicated to traditional Catholic Action as expressed in the works of Fr. Denis Fahey. Fahey, for those unaware, was a politically active Holy Ghost Father who promoted the social doctrine of Christ the King in books and pamphlets which also took an extremely negative view of communists, freemasons, and rabbinic Judaism. In the post-Vatican II Catholic Church, Fahey became persona non grata for his alleged anti-Semitism and apparent support of anti-Zionist conspiracy theories. While not everything Fahey wrote about Jews and Judaism is defensible (an observation that could also be extended to the likes of Belloc and Chesterton as well), most of Fahey’s works are dedicated to exploring Catholic social doctrine and applying it to the modern world. What’s wrong with that?

The problem which seems to plague some of Fahey’s current followers is that they take his writings as a “package deal.” If Fahey (or any other writer on Catholic social teaching) believed this-or-that conspiracy claim about Judaism, then it is acceptable and safe for us to do so as well. That is, to say the least, sloppy thinking, the sort which contemporary Catholics dedicated to the Church’s authentic social magisterium ought to distance themselves from as quickly as possible. While charges of anti-Semitism are too often overblown, particularly when emanating from ideologically bent institutes like the Southern Poverty Law Center, they can deliver an immediate credibility death blow to even the most well-intentioned endeavors.

Not that faithful Catholics should cave to politically driven bullying. Although the Legion of St. Louis is no more (perhaps for the best), IHS Press—with its excellent catalog of classic and contemporary works on distributism, Catholic Action, and other social topics—continues on. Praise be. Unfortunately, there still exists a fringe culture of ostensible Catholics who continue to associate with organizations and movements which are unambiguously linked to not only anti-Semitism, but white supremacism, hyper-nationalism, and militarism as well. Such groups could be easily ignored if it wasn’t for the fact that their behavior is often used to tar-and-feather Catholics who know full well that racism and Church teaching are fundamentally incompatible.

On more than one occasion I have seen Catholics who are dedicated to third-way economic systems attacked by their neoliberal/libertarian critics as being associated with the so-called “Third Positionist” movement which loosely shares their social concerns while harboring a number of racialist and nationalist beliefs that are antithetical to Catholic doctrine. This type of uncharitable smearing is no different than the sort promoted by the Acton Institute’s Todd Flanders with regard to distributism—a movement he links to fascism in his “course” on distributist thought given each year at “Acton University.”

Catholics who are seriously committed to the Church’s social magisterium in an integral manner need to be prepared to deal with this and other types of nonsense. Neoliberal/libertarian Catholics have been driven back to the ropes in recent years and are now looking to swing back hard. While the main battle raging seems to be between the so-called “Radical Catholics” and the old-guard conservatives who once populated the pages of First Things, barking-mad libertarians and a newer generation intoxicated by socialist principles have also started to join in the fray. Integralism, in my estimation, provides a meaningful and doctrinally secure alternative to all of these factions, though its reemergence has—up to this point—been slow. Maybe that is a blessing in disguise. There is still considerable retrieval work to be done regarding classic Catholic social teaching. The foundation is not fully set, but it’s getting there.

Mattias A. Caro, writing over at Ethika Politika, calls on Catholics to detach themselves from the petty things of this world in order to better serve Christ the King. I couldn’t agree more. Quoting Pope Pius XI’s Quas Primas, Caro reminds readers that before Christ can reign in society, He must first reign in our hearts, minds, and wills. In most instances, Christ’s social reign begins in the home and then moves outward into the schools, workplaces, and seats of political authority. It is a pious practice for Latin Catholics to enthrone the Sacred Heart of Jesus in their homes, reciting this prayer nightly:

Last month in The New York Times Michel Houellebecq, author of the unsettling socio-political satire Submission, remarked that “Islam is political because it describes the way in which society should be organized.” In other words, there is no such thing as apolitical Islam in the way some try to say there is an apolitical Christianity. Now that late-modernity has nearly exhausted its Christian cultural heritage, it has become commonplace for many Christians, including Catholics and Orthodox, to pitch their religion as a private affair which can lead to certain internal spiritual (or, rather, psychological) changes which can have salutary externalities that are valuable to a “rightly ordered” liberal-democratic regime. Setting aside the rhetoric of “human dignity,” a deontological defense no reasonable person—religious or secular—takes seriously, are these not the terms on which religious freedom is defended? “Good Christians” who practice their religion “the right way” (i.e., privately and without running afoul society’s ever-shifting value set) make for “good citizens.” They’re nice; they set-up charities and volunteer at soup kitchens; they vote for safety nets and entitlement programs; and so on, and so forth. The last thing a “good Christian” should do is start barking about how society should be organized.

I confess that I have not paid much mind to Ethika Politika’s ongoing series about what Protestants want from Catholics. In fact, my knee-jerk response to the series was, “Who cares?” If the series concerned what the Orthodox—Eastern or Oriental—want from Catholics (or vice versa), it would have been a different story, perhaps because I am biased toward Apostolic communions which have retained a valid episcopate and Eucharist. Anyway, I was intrigued by the title of today’s installment, “What I Want from Catholics: Occupy the Public Space,” by Susannah Black, an Anglican and editor at Solidarity Hall. After taking note of areas of common interest to Protestants and Catholics, including the unique opportunity the latter has to take advantage of Pope Francis’s public popularity in order to promote Christian social teachings and pro-life values, Black turns her attention to the Kingship of Christ. Here are some excerpts: